On another note, I'm still hoping that we'll get a moment that "Hopefuldreamer" had mentioned about awhile back where we get to see the intensity that can be displayed when a person looks like (to both themselves and the audience) they're about to be killed within an event and that they really convey the sense that all hope is lost, along with the necessary fear presented within their eyes, only for Superman to make that last minute rescue. This would be another great way to further exhibit on how Superman represents hope to people and could be one hell of a visual experience on screen.

Agreed. It's not the disaster that's in focus, but rather the human emotion. Or better, a perfect dose of each while still relying heavily on the human emotion. Add to that, if they could execute it in a way that made it feel like the audience themselves got rescued, now that would be something.
I hope we get something like this with the oil-rig incident.

__________________"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new"

Garfield is a fantastic actor, imo. Not only was he great in Boy A and Red Riding, but I was lucky enough to see him in Death of a Salesman, and he was remarkable in that.

Garfield, imo, showed actual, real emotion. More than Maguire did in all three movies combined. I personally think he has a fantastic career ahead of him. Not to mention, he's just a good person. On TASM Blu Ray, there is a little segment that shows the work he's done with Orphans, in Africa, I think. Although I could be wrong on where it was. Anyways, he just gives off the vibe that he is truly humble and genuinely wants to be a good person and help people.

Having said that, speaking purely on basis of acting talent, Garfield is better actor than Cavill.

He's perhaps had better roles. I haven't seen anything with Henry in it. Is he really ordinary? I hope we don't get some wooden, constipated performance (ą la Brandon Routh, although I put this almost entirely on the direction and script). We don't want an emotionless lead.

On another note, I'm still hoping that we'll get a moment that "Hopefuldreamer" had mentioned about awhile back where we get to see the intensity that can be displayed when a person looks like (to both themselves and the audience) they're about to be killed within an event and that they really convey the sense that all hope is lost, along with the necessary fear presented within their eyes, only for Superman to make that last minute rescue. This would be another great way to further exhibit on how Superman represents hope to people and could be one hell of a visual experience on screen.

That would be too close to perfect... I have a good feeling about this movie but I'm not going to set myself up for what you've just mentioned. I would love to feel that. I have yet to see that in any super hero movie. Those are very hard emotions to conger. Trust me. Very hard. But it would set it apart from any other movie out there.

__________________

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. ~John Kenneth Galbraith

All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward. ~Ellen Glasgow

Definitely not. Cavill's performance(s) is one of the most important aspects of the movie, particularly with the whole relevancy-thing. He just HAS to be sincere and believable, and so far I havent gotten that vibe from him. But I'm still very much looking forward to his portrayals.

__________________"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new"

I'm gonna go on record and say I feel the exact opposite on all of this.

Okay, but I stand by what I said. But the script was lazy and contrived, especially the plot devices driving that climax.

Garfield is a very good actor, and he'd be perfect if they actually let his Peter be more playful and confident. There were a few more one-liners, but his character just didn't change over the course of the film (or at least hinted at a change).

__________________

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine Channing Tatum grinding his crotch in a human face, forever."

Huh? That's not really the right attitude. He should be more than great for this IMO. He's the lead in a possible trilogy and JL-franchise, for Pete's sake..! If he's just ok, then why even bother?

Because the lawsuit was the reason of MoS even existing. As far as JL goes, I'm willing to bet WB will make Batman the main lead of that film, just for marketing reasons given the popularity of the character.

He just HAS to be sincere and believable, and so far I havent gotten that vibe from him.

Do you base that on the whole 20 some seconds of footage we saw and 2 sentences we heard of him in MOS or do you base it on some of his previous performances? Just curious!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rust

I was surprised at how emotional it was and how good Garfield was with that.

MOS looks like it might be just as emotional, but unfortunately I dont think Cavill will be as good as Garfield was. Of course time will tell, but I dont really get the same emotional vibe from Cavill in what I've seen him in so far. It just seems a little stiff and forced.
I really hope my impression of him will be pulverized next june, because the drama in MOS should be ten times more than in TAS. I'm guessing it WILL be on a more adult and moody level. But Cavill really needs to exel here if MOS aims at moving the audience. It's really important that he does. I really wanna care about this on so many levels. I almost feel sorry for Cavill, because there are so many potential layers to both Clark and Kal-El that needs to be addressed that it's not really fair.

I think it's apples and oranges really. Clark Kent and Superman are not the same as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. I agree that Cavill needs to excel in his role but I don't think the emotional aspect will be the same as what Garfield had to do. And I honestly think Garfield tends to get a bit overrated. He's not that good of an actor and I personally didn't really like his performance in TASM. Just came off like a snotty teenager with an attitude problem to me. A bit douchery and not very convincing in a lot of scenes. But that's just me.

Speaking of Cavill, I went through the trouble of acquiring and viewing all of his performances in the past year as I was very unacquainted with him before and I wanted to check him out. I actually just finished with The Tudors about a week ago. I'll say this, he's not a great actor by any stretch of the imagination, but what I saw in him (particularly through the 4 seasons of The Tudors) was all the qualities needed for an actor to portray a great Superman. Now that doesn't mean that he will but it's there.

What Im talking about is presence, charm and to a slightly lesser extent charisma. Cavill has those 3 qualities and he has the ability to portray it believably in front of the camera. I always felt he was the best in two situations, one where he had to portray a stoic, authoritative figure - he has a strong and commanding presence and two, when the role required him to be charming. He just has this natural charm, really the same thing that Reeve had, the smile the mannerisms and with it charisma. Particularly in the romantic scenes or when he is being a bit seductive, he always displays a good dose of charisma. And I think that's what important for Superman himself. Cavill is also good with portraying intensity and good in action scenes. So as Superman, he can have a slight edge to him and display intensity in a battle, then display kindness and charm as he saves a child and finally he can exhume the presence of a great hero as he addresses the public/media, whatever. Just an example.

As for Clark Kent, well, I think he can handle a mild mannered reporter. I've seen Cavill in situations where he appears like a really normal guy, almost one you wouldn't notice and he seems pretty private and calm in general as a person. Quite a contrast to certain situations, such as the red carpet for Immortals premiere, where he carries himself with confidence and swagger and really appears charismatic.

I did notice a lot of negatives with him of course. I don't want to write too much about his acting (maybe in the Cavill topic) but he is really prone to overacting, especially in scenes where strong emotion is required. Fear, sadness, anger. He also breaks character often and becomes visibly self conscious and start to lose control of his expression, doing annoying things like biting his upper lip (he does that in quite a few different roles, it's a natural human reaction to when we think we are in the center of attention in a crowd, for example). He is also inconsistent with his line delivery. In one moment in The Tudors, I was genuinely impressed by his delivery and acting but then in the next scene I was genuinely WTF?? when his delivery fell flat and didn't carry the emotional resonance that it should. And yes, he can be stiff and wooden as well, although far far less as the likes of Tom Welling for example.

But he is also talented. As said, he can emote, he does have good line delivery and he's shown to be a good TV actor and an average-solid movie actor but most importantly he has the 3 qualities I mentioned previously and enough acting talent to believably translate to the screen. You don't need to be an Oscar caliber actor to be a great Superman. I think Cavill is pretty much on par with Reeve based on their performances (I've seen most from Reeve) and definitely a better actor than some of the guys preceding him in the role.

I also think he can improve, but im not sure if he'll even want to. Perhaps he'll just let his career peak as Superman. Many actors work on the craft, have classes even go to schools and many of them (today considered great actors) didn't peak or really shine until in their late 30's. I'd love to see what Cavill would be like under a really great director. Sadly, Snyder isn't it, in terms of directing actors. Let's just say, I don't think Snyder will direct anyone to an Oscar anytime soon.

And that's another thing. Did Snyder recognize those qualities in Cavill and direct him accordingly? Does the script do justice to the character? It remains to be seen. It also remains to be seen if Cavill will rub off a bit from his supporting cast. When people are surrounded by their betters, be it in film, sports, music it can cause them to up their own level considerably. The biggest indicator of what Cavill is made of, will be in his scenes with Shannon. Shannon says he has a lot of scenes with Cavill. If Cavill manages to survive those without getting completely chewed up, that'll be a feat in itself, as Shannon is a an incredibly powerful actor who always makes the lesser ones around him look like set furniture.

So to conclude this long ass post that nobody will read, LOL, Cavill has the look, he paid his dues in the gym and got the physique, he did the research and I believe he has the talent and the qualities and the rest is up to Snyder and the script itself. I think the potential is there for Cavill to shine and really leave a mark on the role. And as others have mentioned, he better. The franchise is ridding on him more than on anyone else really. If he doesn't win the public over and make them want more of his Superman, well, that'll be a failure.

And back to Garfield, well, if Christopher Reeve would walk into a scene with his Spider-Man, he would steal it without saying a word and IMO so would Cavill. You just can't compete with the presence and charisma of the worlds greatest hero!

The thing with Cavill is, he's never had a chance to prove himself, he's never had THE staring role of a film you catch my drift? I think Cavill realized this is ****ing Superman, and he had to step up his game, and i pray and hope he did, and we will see in June.

The interesting thing about Routh was that everyone associated with Superman was praising him prior to the film's release (the Reeve family, Spacey, WB execs, director, producers, his ShoWest award etc)...it was all planned.

Even after the film's release, the majority of the fan community praised his performance for several years and saw his evoking of Chris Reeve as a good thing. The hype machine was still in overdrive.

It was only after the sequel plans died due to the first film's financial under performance that everyone started calling out for something different and saw his performance as not up to par.

Definitely looking forward to that, but where's the teaser-trailer? Doesnt this come out a month after MOS and we still havent gotten anything official? Seems odd that we'll get a full trailer by christmas.

Not all films have teaser trailers. Based on GDT's statements (you can read the article in question here: http://collider.com/pacific-rim-2-se...l-toro/210038/ ) it seems he doesn't want to show anything to the public if it's not suitably impressive. So a teaser for Pacific Rim would be kind of pointless. They did released a few stills, some concept artwork and have a FB page up for a few months though and some other stuff. And teasers in general are a hit and miss and sometimes ineffective, imo. But like I said, im sure the trailer for Pacific Rim will be impressive stuff. It seems the film has a really big scope to it. It's also funny how PR is continuing the WB tradition of debuting trailers 7 months in advance. And since it will obviously be in front of The Hobbit, I hope it doesn't upstage the MOS trailer.

The thing with Cavill is, he's never had a chance to prove himself, he's never had THE staring role of a film you catch my drift? I think Cavill realized this is ****ing Superman, and he had to step up his game, and i pray and hope he did, and we will see in June.

Immortals, where he was okay but not enough to stand out and make a name for himself.

Cold Light of Day, where he was.. not good. At least by film standards. I think he's good for TV.

Immortals, where he was okay but not enough to stand out and make a name for himself.

I fail to see how he could stand out anymore in that role than he already did and ““make a name for himself`` anymore than he did. He definitely increased his recognition and that's enough. He'll make a name for himself if MOS is a hit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deathstroke

Cold Light of Day, where he was.. not good. At least by film standards. I think he's good for TV.

Nobody was good in CLOFD. Cavill was no worse than Weaver or Willis. He also said in an interview that the director wanted him to act very over the top scared, even to the point of hyperventilating. So I'll blame the pathetic script and the director for the poor performances of everyone in that piece of junk of a film.

That was a great long post above G.Godfrey. Really well said. I'm not sure how I feel about it though. It's a bit of a worry to be sure.

I'm trying to think of other lead role examples in the genre. Christian Bale was already proven with American Psycho before Batman, and he got an Oscar later. Perhaps Chris Evans. He surprised me with the humbleness and modesty he suddenly had in the Cap film. Even Chris Hemsworth. He came from an Aussie soap, not exactly the pinnacle of acting.

My Brandon Routh example is proof that no matter how good or bad Cavill does, the fans will go out of their way to see his performance as good. There is a strong bias here. The blinders are on.

So really, this entire argument is pointless. We all know how it will turn out.

But from a Hollywood point of view, I don't think Cavill's acting will ever get him into any of the upper echelon Oscar circles. He really isn't a great breakthrough star like Garfield. He's okay. Serviceable. Good enough.

My Brandon Routh example is proof that no matter how good or bad Cavill does, the fans will go out of their way to see his performance as good. There is a strong bias here. The blinders are on.

But the critics and the general public won't have blinders on. Their opinion will matter the most, because the ““fanboy`` percentage is way too low to matter in relation to the general public.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deathstroke

So really, this entire argument is pointless. We all know how it will turn out.

No we don't. At least not when it comes to his performance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deathstroke

The interesting thing about Routh was that everyone associated with Superman was praising him prior to the film's release (the Reeve family, Spacey, WB execs, director, producers, his ShoWest award etc)...it was all planned.

Even after the film's release, the majority of the fan community praised his performance for several years and saw his evoking of Chris Reeve as a good thing. The hype machine was still in overdrive.

Of course. Just like everyone will praise Cavill when they start doing promotional interviews for MOS. It goes without saying. But the statements made so far, were not done for MOS interviews. If the reporters didn't ask, nobody would mention it. And even so, I hardly think Adams and Shannon would go out of their way to compliment Henry when the question doesn't even directly ask of that, as they did.

Especially Shannon. He is not someone who throws BS around. He called the movies he's in merely, ok, or decent. He is not the one for hyperbole. It's funny how, if you follow his statements on MOS he became more and more of a fan of Cavill. First (before shooting) he mentioned what a hard part Superman is and that he thinks ““that this Guy (Cavill) will be alright``. While shooting he was asked of Cavill and he didn't want to give an answer because he only had one scene with him and he said he isn't sure yet and even said Reeve has a special place in his heart. About two months later he said that every time he sees him, he thinks ““there goes Superman``. So that's interesting how he went from one end to another.

Of course, this may mean nothing. We'll see. Hopefully in about a month we'll have a bit better idea of how Cavill performed.

But I personally have high standards for the role and the film itself. No blinders here. If Cavill disappoints I'll be the first to chew him a new one around here.

But the critics and the general public won't have blinders on. Their opinion will matter the most, because the ““fanboy`` percentage is way too low to matter in relation to the general public.

No we don't. At least not when it comes to his performance.

Of course. Just like everyone will praise Cavill when they start doing promotional interviews for MOS. It goes without saying. But the statements made so far, were not done for MOS interviews. If the reporters didn't ask, nobody would mention it. And even so, I hardly think Adams and Shannon would go out of their way to compliment Henry when the question doesn't even directly ask of that, as they did.

Especially Shannon. He is not someone who throws BS around. He called the movies he's in merely, ok, or decent. He is not the one for hyperbole. It's funny how, if you follow his statements on MOS he became more and more of a fan of Cavill. First (before shooting) he mentioned what a hard part Superman is and that he thinks ““that this Guy (Cavill) will be alright``. While shooting he was asked of Cavill and he didn't want to give an answer because he only had one scene with him and he said he isn't sure yet and even said Reeve has a special place in his heart. About two months later he said that every time he sees him, he thinks ““there goes Superman``. So that's interesting how he went from one end to another.

Of course, this may mean nothing. We'll see. Hopefully in about a month we'll have a bit better idea of how Cavill performed.

But I personally have high standards for the role and the film itself. No blinders here. If Cavill disappoints I'll be the first to chew him a new one around here.

Shannon really said all that? huh. Anyway i agree, i have high standards, and if Cavill disappointing, i'll be one of the first as well to chew him a new one lol. At the end of the day, i just want a good, fresh take, on an american icon.